Lux Lucet

The Apostle Paul declares his Roman citizenship, anon. 2008.

Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?”

He said, “Yes.”

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.”

And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen” (Acts 22:27-28).

Hamartano is a Greek verb, which is rendered in English translations of the New Testament as “sin.” But in classical Greek usage it more commonly meant “miss the mark.”

For example, one classical Greek writer gave an account of a hunting party that went out to slay a wild boar. Among the hunters were the king’s son and a rather ambitious courtier. The hunters finally cornered the boar, and the courtier, apparently eager to get credit for the kill, threw his spear and missed, instead striking the king’s son and killing him.

That, as they say, was a bad career move.

But rather than focusing on the unfortunate fate of the courtier, for our purposes the interesting thing about this account was the word choice used by the author. The verb he used to describe the courtier’s throwing and missing with this spear was harmartano. He missed his mark, the boar, but struck the prince.

I mention all this by way of introduction to the topic of birthright citizenship, because of the remarkable ability of contemporary men to overlook major, glaring problems in our society, while at the same time exerting almost unlimited effort arguing over minor points. That is to say, their labors, however great, almost always seem to be misdirected. Or to put it another way, these men miss the mark.

This past week brought another example of mark missing, this time by members of the U.S. Senate. Although their work came on went from the daily news cycle so quickly that it was easy to overlook, this past week was supposed to feature serious debate in the Senate over immigration reform.

Four different immigration reform proposals were introduced. Four different immigration proposals failed to garner enough votes to move forward.

Not that this was any big loss, mind you. Yes, some proposals were better than others. But what all of them had in common was that they missed the mark. For every single proposal, as far as this author is aware, failed to so much as mention the single most important issue related to solving the immigration problem facing the United States: The need to eliminate Birthright Citizenship.

It’s as if none of the Senators had so much as heard of Birthright Citizenship, let alone considered fixing this loophole as in any way important to addressing America’s broken immigration system. Instead, they showed themselves content to, once again, rearrange the deck chairs while the SS United States slowly sinks beneath the waves of globalist directed, weaponized immigration.

As this author has argued elsewhere, the Bible teaches there are two, and only two, legitimate pathways for someone to obtain citizenship in a nation: by birth or by oath of allegiance.

The conversation between the Apostle Paul and the Roman commander holding him prisoner illustrates this point. The commander, not descended from a Roman family, had secured his citizenship by paying a sum of money. Very likely this also involved some sort of oath of allegiance.

Paul, on the other hand, states that he was born a citizen. That is to say, he received his citizenship from his parents, who were themselves Roman citizens.

Now someone may argue that, yes, this passage illustrates my point about their being only two pathways to citizenship, but, but , BUT!, they will say, this passage is about citizenship and naturalization laws of the pagan Roman empire, and is, therefore, not normative for Christian political thought.

To this I would say in return, true, but there are a couple of points that need to be made. First, this account by Luke does provide a clear example of the two pathways to citizenship mentioned above, birth to citizen parents – this is referred to in immigration law as jus sanguinis, Latin for “right, or law, of blood” – and oath of allegiance.

Second, although the illustration itself is clearly taken from Roman law, the principle of jus sanguinis is a Biblical concept. For the principle of jus sanguinis was the norm for both ancient Israel and the New Testament church.

But before moving forward with my argument to show that the Old and New Testaments support jus sanguinis and reject jus soli – jus soli, Latin for “right, or law, of soil,” is what is usually meant when people today use the term “birthright citizenship,” this is the stance that is it the place of an infant’s birth, rather than the citizenship status of the parents, that determines the citizenship of the child – I want to warn my readers that I shall make my case as a Presbyterian.

I realize that not everyone reading this post is going to agree with the Presbyterian doctrine of the church, in particular the doctrine of how one obtains membership in the church, for my argument will include references to infant baptism.

That said, if you happen to be a credo-Baptist, I would like to say up front that it is not my intention to reject you as a fellow believer simply because I argue as a paedo-Baptist. After all, some of my best friends are Baptists! I know, I know, that sounds horribly clichéd, but it’s also true.

My take on the baptism issue is that it is not one of salvation. There are Baptists who believe the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same time, there are Presbyterians who teach sinners are justified by faith and works. These are unsaved men, who, if they persist in their unbelief, will perish eternally for their rejection of the Gospel of grace, their view of baptism notwithstanding.

It is my hope that Christians, whatever their views may be on baptism, will at least consider my argument. The Bible alone is the Word of God and, as Paul tells us, it equips a man for every good work, including the good work of politics in general, and of answering the current questions related to immigration in particular.

(To be continued…)